Rat & Mouse Model Market by Species (Rat Models, Mouse Models), Model Type (Inbred Models, Outbred Models, Genetically Engineered Models), Service Type, Application, End User - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The Rat & Mouse Model Market was valued at USD 2.45 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 2.61 billion in 2025, with a CAGR of 8.56%, reaching USD 4.74 billion by 2032.
A strategic primer that frames the evolving rat and mouse preclinical ecosystem, highlighting scientific advances, translational priorities, and operational imperatives
The laboratory rat and mouse model landscape sits at the intersection of technological innovation, translational science, and operational complexity. Over the last decade, advances in genetics, genome editing, and husbandry practices have expanded the repertoire of available models while raising the bar for experimental rigor and reproducibility. At the same time, research priorities across therapeutic areas such as oncology, neurology, and immunology have intensified demand for specialized models that faithfully recapitulate human disease biology. This convergence has created both opportunities and constraints for stakeholders that span academic research groups, outsourced research organizations, and pharmaceutical developers.
Understanding this ecosystem requires more than a catalog of available strains and services; it demands an appreciation for how model selection influences study design, regulatory interpretation, and downstream translational risk. Therefore, this report frames the current environment through the dual lenses of scientific capability and operational feasibility. It emphasizes the importance of aligning animal selection with study objectives, integrating advanced genotyping and phenotyping tools, and managing supply chain and ethical considerations in parallel. By situating these elements together, the introduction establishes a foundation for strategic choices that drive reproducible science and efficient program execution.
A comprehensive view of technological, operational, and regulatory forces reshaping rat and mouse model development and service delivery in preclinical research
The preclinical landscape for rat and mouse models is undergoing transformative shifts driven by technological, regulatory, and commercial forces that reshape how organizations design and execute in vivo studies. Gene editing technologies have shifted from niche to mainstream, enabling the rapid creation of knockout and transgenic lines that match precise biological hypotheses, while disease-specific models are becoming more refined through combinations of genetic, environmental, and microbiome manipulations. At the same time, cross-disciplinary approaches that integrate behavioral assays, ADME profiling, and safety pharmacology are prompting laboratories to evolve their infrastructure and capabilities.
Operationally, there is a pronounced move toward service specialization and consolidation. Outsourced research organizations are expanding integrated offerings that bundle model development, colony management, and study execution, while in-house research programs increasingly focus on bespoke or rare-disease models where institutional expertise confers competitive advantage. Distribution strategies are also shifting as direct procurement and distributor networks adapt to demand for shorter lead times and validated quality assurance. Importantly, regulatory attention on reproducibility and animal welfare has catalyzed investments in standardized protocols, enhanced environmental controls, and digital recordkeeping, creating new expectations for suppliers and end users alike. Together, these shifts are reconfiguring competitive dynamics and elevating the role of data integrity in preclinical decision-making.
An analysis of tariff-driven pressures in 2025 that influence sourcing strategies, supply chain resilience, and procurement planning for animal model users and suppliers
U.S. tariff policy developments in 2025 have introduced a layered set of considerations for stakeholders that rely on international supply chains for animals, reagents, and specialized equipment. Elevated tariffs on certain categories of biological materials, shipping containers, or laboratory equipment create added cost pressure for providers and end users, incentivizing adjustments across sourcing, inventory strategy, and vendor selection. In addition, tariff-driven unpredictability tends to lengthen procurement cycles as organizations seek tariff-exempt channels, local suppliers, or longer-term contracts to stabilize unit costs and lead times.
These dynamics interact with broader supply chain stressors. Breeding facilities and model developers, especially those that import breeding stock or specialized consumables, may face longer clearance processes and higher compliance overhead, which can complicate colony expansion and rapid model deployment. In response, some institutions have prioritized regional suppliers to reduce cross-border exposure and potential tariff passthrough, while others have reengineered study timelines to accommodate slower replenishment schedules. Concurrently, tariff volatility has elevated the importance of contractual protections and scenario planning in vendor agreements, prompting more rigorous clauses related to price adjustments, force majeure, and supply continuity.
Collectively, the tariff environment has reinforced a strategic imperative: diversify supply nodes, strengthen local partnerships where feasible, and integrate tariff risk into procurement and study planning to preserve experimental timelines and data integrity.
Actionable segmentation insights that align animal choice, model type, application domain, and service preferences to scientific objectives and operational capabilities
Segmentation insights offer a practical framework for aligning scientific goals with operational choices across model types, research applications, and user profiles. Based on animal distinctions, users may prefer mouse models for genetic manipulation and high-throughput behavioral screens, while rat models remain favored for certain physiological and surgical applications due to their size and physiological similarity for specific endpoints. Based on model type, disease specific models-including cardiovascular disorders, infectious disease models, metabolic disorders, neurological disorders, and oncology models-provide targeted translational relevance, whereas knockout and transgenic lines enable mechanistic interrogation and xenograft models support human tumor biology studies. Based on application, the selection between cardiovascular, immunology, infectious disease, metabolic disorder, neurology, oncology, and orthopedic uses should be driven by endpoint fidelity, assay availability, and the compatibility of the model phenotype with the therapeutic hypothesis.
Based on end user, academic and research institutes often prioritize flexibility and exploratory model development, while CROs emphasize reproducibility, throughput, and regulatory alignment to meet sponsor timelines; pharma and biotech organizations balance internal capability with strategic outsourcing to access specialized models and technical expertise. Based on distribution channel, direct procurement fosters tighter control over lineage and quality metrics, whereas distributors provide reach, inventory buffering, and access to multiple providers. Based on research type, ADME, behavioral, efficacy, safety pharmacology, and toxicology studies each impose distinct husbandry and data capture requirements that should inform facility design and vendor selection. Finally, based on service type, catalog offerings support rapid, standardized testing, while custom services enable bespoke model generation and protocol adaptation for novel biology. Synthesizing these segments helps organizations prioritize investments in capabilities, vendor partnerships, and infrastructure that align with scientific and operational objectives.
Region-specific considerations and practical guidance for aligning model availability, regulatory frameworks, and operational execution across global preclinical programs
Regional dynamics meaningfully shape model availability, regulatory expectations, and service delivery patterns across the Americas, Europe, Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific. In the Americas, concentration of large pharma and academic hubs supports a dense ecosystem of model developers, specialized CROs, and advanced vivarium infrastructure, facilitating rapid adoption of novel genetic models and complex study designs. In contrast, Europe, Middle East & Africa exhibit heterogeneous regulatory regimes and strong emphasis on animal welfare frameworks, which drives investment in standardized protocols, accreditation, and digital traceability to meet diverse national requirements. Meanwhile, Asia-Pacific is characterized by rapid expansion in research capacity, rising domestic biotech investment, and growing capabilities in both breeding and genetic engineering, although regional supply chains and quality assurance practices can vary widely.
Across these regions, cross-border collaborations and regional partnerships are increasingly important to manage lead times, intellectual property considerations, and compliance. Organizations with global programs are adapting by creating regional sourcing strategies that reduce single-point dependencies and by harmonizing protocols across sites to enable pooled analyses. Additionally, shipment logistics, customs regimes, and veterinary import controls remain practical considerations that influence where complex or time-sensitive studies are executed. Ultimately, regional insight underscores the need for a differentiated approach to supplier evaluation, regulatory alignment, and operational design when planning multi-jurisdictional preclinical programs.
Competitive dynamics and capability-based differentiation among providers, highlighting specialization, integrated services, and operational excellence as market multipliers
Competitive dynamics among companies operating in the rat and mouse model ecosystem are shaped by specialization, service breadth, and the ability to deliver reproducible outcomes. Leading providers differentiate through integrated offerings that combine model generation, colony management, and in vivo study execution with advanced genotyping and phenotyping services. Others focus on niche strength, such as custom transgenic lines, humanized xenograft platforms, or high-throughput behavioral phenotyping, leveraging deep technical expertise to command premium positioning. Strategic partnerships between technology vendors, contract research organizations, and academic centers are becoming more common as organizations seek to de-risk model development and accelerate translational validation.
From a commercial perspective, firms that invest in digital data management, standardized protocols, and transparent quality metrics tend to strengthen trust with sponsors and reduce onboarding friction. Additionally, companies that offer configurable service bundles-combining catalog and custom elements-are better positioned to serve a wider set of end users, from exploratory academic studies to regulated preclinical packages intended to support clinical filing activities. Operational excellence in logistics, biosecurity, and animal welfare certification remains a core differentiator, as does the ability to provide localized support across key geographies to mitigate tariff and customs complexity. Ultimately, competitive advantage accrues to organizations that can align scientific rigor with dependable delivery and clear quality assurance.
Practical, high-impact recommendations for strengthening reproducibility, diversifying sourcing, and aligning partnerships to protect preclinical program continuity and translational value
Industry leaders can take concrete steps to strengthen resilience, accelerate translational relevance, and preserve experimental integrity across the model lifecycle. First, prioritize investments in standard operating procedures and digital data capture to improve reproducibility and enable seamless handoffs between discovery and regulatory-grade studies. Second, diversify sourcing strategies to include regional suppliers and validated distributors, thereby reducing exposure to cross-border tariff and logistics disruptions while ensuring access to critical breeding lines and consumables. Third, adopt a portfolio approach to model selection: maintain a core set of validated catalog models for routine assays while preserving capacity to commission custom disease-specific or transgenic lines for high-value translational questions.
Additionally, forge deeper collaborative relationships with strategic CROs and academic partners to access complementary expertise in specialty phenotyping, ADME profiling, and complex behavioral assays. Strengthen contractual terms to include contingency provisions for supply continuity and price volatility, and incorporate tariff risk assessments into procurement planning. Finally, invest in staff training on welfare, regulatory compliance, and advanced husbandry to protect animal health and data quality. By combining procedural rigor, diversified sourcing, and targeted partnerships, industry leaders can reduce operational risk and improve the predictability of preclinical programs.
A transparent mixed-methods research approach combining primary interviews, literature synthesis, and cross-validated scenario analysis to ensure actionable and reliable insights
This analysis draws on a structured, reproducible methodology that integrates primary interviews, secondary literature review, and triangulation of operational practice across stakeholder types. Primary inputs include structured interviews with vivarium managers, study directors, procurement leads at academic institutions, project managers at contract research organizations, and regulatory affairs specialists. These conversations informed an understanding of operational constraints, vendor selection criteria, and emergent scientific needs. Secondary sources encompass peer-reviewed literature on model development, technical guidance on welfare and husbandry, and policy documentation related to import/export and compliance frameworks.
Synthesis relied on cross-validation between qualitative insights and documented best practices, with attention to segmentation across animal type, model type, application, end user, distribution channel, research type, and service type to ensure that conclusions reflect differentiated operational realities. Regional analysis incorporated perspective from the Americas, Europe, Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific to surface practical considerations for multi-jurisdictional programs. Analytical rigor was maintained through iterative review cycles, validation meetings with domain experts, and scenario-based assessments of supply chain and regulatory sensitivities. This mixed-methods approach ensures the findings are actionable for both scientific and commercial decision-makers.
A concise conclusion that synthesizes technological progress, operational imperatives, and strategic approaches to sustain translational rigor and program continuity
In summary, the rat and mouse model landscape is characterized by rapid technical progress, evolving operational demands, and heightened sensitivity to supply chain and regulatory variables. Scientific advances in genetic engineering and refined disease-specific constructs are expanding experimental possibilities, yet they also introduce complexity in logistics, quality control, and protocol harmonization. The cumulative effect is an environment where careful model selection, robust data practices, and diversified sourcing are not optional but essential to preserve translational integrity and program timelines.
Stakeholders that adopt a strategic posture-combining standardized catalog capabilities for efficiency with targeted custom development for high-value biology-will be better positioned to manage cost and schedule pressures while delivering rigorous, reproducible results. Moreover, regional diversification and contractual protections can mitigate exposure to tariff volatility and customs-related delays. Ultimately, the most successful organizations will be those that integrate scientific excellence with disciplined operational management, fostering partnerships that enable both innovation and reliable delivery across the preclinical continuum.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
A strategic primer that frames the evolving rat and mouse preclinical ecosystem, highlighting scientific advances, translational priorities, and operational imperatives
The laboratory rat and mouse model landscape sits at the intersection of technological innovation, translational science, and operational complexity. Over the last decade, advances in genetics, genome editing, and husbandry practices have expanded the repertoire of available models while raising the bar for experimental rigor and reproducibility. At the same time, research priorities across therapeutic areas such as oncology, neurology, and immunology have intensified demand for specialized models that faithfully recapitulate human disease biology. This convergence has created both opportunities and constraints for stakeholders that span academic research groups, outsourced research organizations, and pharmaceutical developers.
Understanding this ecosystem requires more than a catalog of available strains and services; it demands an appreciation for how model selection influences study design, regulatory interpretation, and downstream translational risk. Therefore, this report frames the current environment through the dual lenses of scientific capability and operational feasibility. It emphasizes the importance of aligning animal selection with study objectives, integrating advanced genotyping and phenotyping tools, and managing supply chain and ethical considerations in parallel. By situating these elements together, the introduction establishes a foundation for strategic choices that drive reproducible science and efficient program execution.
A comprehensive view of technological, operational, and regulatory forces reshaping rat and mouse model development and service delivery in preclinical research
The preclinical landscape for rat and mouse models is undergoing transformative shifts driven by technological, regulatory, and commercial forces that reshape how organizations design and execute in vivo studies. Gene editing technologies have shifted from niche to mainstream, enabling the rapid creation of knockout and transgenic lines that match precise biological hypotheses, while disease-specific models are becoming more refined through combinations of genetic, environmental, and microbiome manipulations. At the same time, cross-disciplinary approaches that integrate behavioral assays, ADME profiling, and safety pharmacology are prompting laboratories to evolve their infrastructure and capabilities.
Operationally, there is a pronounced move toward service specialization and consolidation. Outsourced research organizations are expanding integrated offerings that bundle model development, colony management, and study execution, while in-house research programs increasingly focus on bespoke or rare-disease models where institutional expertise confers competitive advantage. Distribution strategies are also shifting as direct procurement and distributor networks adapt to demand for shorter lead times and validated quality assurance. Importantly, regulatory attention on reproducibility and animal welfare has catalyzed investments in standardized protocols, enhanced environmental controls, and digital recordkeeping, creating new expectations for suppliers and end users alike. Together, these shifts are reconfiguring competitive dynamics and elevating the role of data integrity in preclinical decision-making.
An analysis of tariff-driven pressures in 2025 that influence sourcing strategies, supply chain resilience, and procurement planning for animal model users and suppliers
U.S. tariff policy developments in 2025 have introduced a layered set of considerations for stakeholders that rely on international supply chains for animals, reagents, and specialized equipment. Elevated tariffs on certain categories of biological materials, shipping containers, or laboratory equipment create added cost pressure for providers and end users, incentivizing adjustments across sourcing, inventory strategy, and vendor selection. In addition, tariff-driven unpredictability tends to lengthen procurement cycles as organizations seek tariff-exempt channels, local suppliers, or longer-term contracts to stabilize unit costs and lead times.
These dynamics interact with broader supply chain stressors. Breeding facilities and model developers, especially those that import breeding stock or specialized consumables, may face longer clearance processes and higher compliance overhead, which can complicate colony expansion and rapid model deployment. In response, some institutions have prioritized regional suppliers to reduce cross-border exposure and potential tariff passthrough, while others have reengineered study timelines to accommodate slower replenishment schedules. Concurrently, tariff volatility has elevated the importance of contractual protections and scenario planning in vendor agreements, prompting more rigorous clauses related to price adjustments, force majeure, and supply continuity.
Collectively, the tariff environment has reinforced a strategic imperative: diversify supply nodes, strengthen local partnerships where feasible, and integrate tariff risk into procurement and study planning to preserve experimental timelines and data integrity.
Actionable segmentation insights that align animal choice, model type, application domain, and service preferences to scientific objectives and operational capabilities
Segmentation insights offer a practical framework for aligning scientific goals with operational choices across model types, research applications, and user profiles. Based on animal distinctions, users may prefer mouse models for genetic manipulation and high-throughput behavioral screens, while rat models remain favored for certain physiological and surgical applications due to their size and physiological similarity for specific endpoints. Based on model type, disease specific models-including cardiovascular disorders, infectious disease models, metabolic disorders, neurological disorders, and oncology models-provide targeted translational relevance, whereas knockout and transgenic lines enable mechanistic interrogation and xenograft models support human tumor biology studies. Based on application, the selection between cardiovascular, immunology, infectious disease, metabolic disorder, neurology, oncology, and orthopedic uses should be driven by endpoint fidelity, assay availability, and the compatibility of the model phenotype with the therapeutic hypothesis.
Based on end user, academic and research institutes often prioritize flexibility and exploratory model development, while CROs emphasize reproducibility, throughput, and regulatory alignment to meet sponsor timelines; pharma and biotech organizations balance internal capability with strategic outsourcing to access specialized models and technical expertise. Based on distribution channel, direct procurement fosters tighter control over lineage and quality metrics, whereas distributors provide reach, inventory buffering, and access to multiple providers. Based on research type, ADME, behavioral, efficacy, safety pharmacology, and toxicology studies each impose distinct husbandry and data capture requirements that should inform facility design and vendor selection. Finally, based on service type, catalog offerings support rapid, standardized testing, while custom services enable bespoke model generation and protocol adaptation for novel biology. Synthesizing these segments helps organizations prioritize investments in capabilities, vendor partnerships, and infrastructure that align with scientific and operational objectives.
Region-specific considerations and practical guidance for aligning model availability, regulatory frameworks, and operational execution across global preclinical programs
Regional dynamics meaningfully shape model availability, regulatory expectations, and service delivery patterns across the Americas, Europe, Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific. In the Americas, concentration of large pharma and academic hubs supports a dense ecosystem of model developers, specialized CROs, and advanced vivarium infrastructure, facilitating rapid adoption of novel genetic models and complex study designs. In contrast, Europe, Middle East & Africa exhibit heterogeneous regulatory regimes and strong emphasis on animal welfare frameworks, which drives investment in standardized protocols, accreditation, and digital traceability to meet diverse national requirements. Meanwhile, Asia-Pacific is characterized by rapid expansion in research capacity, rising domestic biotech investment, and growing capabilities in both breeding and genetic engineering, although regional supply chains and quality assurance practices can vary widely.
Across these regions, cross-border collaborations and regional partnerships are increasingly important to manage lead times, intellectual property considerations, and compliance. Organizations with global programs are adapting by creating regional sourcing strategies that reduce single-point dependencies and by harmonizing protocols across sites to enable pooled analyses. Additionally, shipment logistics, customs regimes, and veterinary import controls remain practical considerations that influence where complex or time-sensitive studies are executed. Ultimately, regional insight underscores the need for a differentiated approach to supplier evaluation, regulatory alignment, and operational design when planning multi-jurisdictional preclinical programs.
Competitive dynamics and capability-based differentiation among providers, highlighting specialization, integrated services, and operational excellence as market multipliers
Competitive dynamics among companies operating in the rat and mouse model ecosystem are shaped by specialization, service breadth, and the ability to deliver reproducible outcomes. Leading providers differentiate through integrated offerings that combine model generation, colony management, and in vivo study execution with advanced genotyping and phenotyping services. Others focus on niche strength, such as custom transgenic lines, humanized xenograft platforms, or high-throughput behavioral phenotyping, leveraging deep technical expertise to command premium positioning. Strategic partnerships between technology vendors, contract research organizations, and academic centers are becoming more common as organizations seek to de-risk model development and accelerate translational validation.
From a commercial perspective, firms that invest in digital data management, standardized protocols, and transparent quality metrics tend to strengthen trust with sponsors and reduce onboarding friction. Additionally, companies that offer configurable service bundles-combining catalog and custom elements-are better positioned to serve a wider set of end users, from exploratory academic studies to regulated preclinical packages intended to support clinical filing activities. Operational excellence in logistics, biosecurity, and animal welfare certification remains a core differentiator, as does the ability to provide localized support across key geographies to mitigate tariff and customs complexity. Ultimately, competitive advantage accrues to organizations that can align scientific rigor with dependable delivery and clear quality assurance.
Practical, high-impact recommendations for strengthening reproducibility, diversifying sourcing, and aligning partnerships to protect preclinical program continuity and translational value
Industry leaders can take concrete steps to strengthen resilience, accelerate translational relevance, and preserve experimental integrity across the model lifecycle. First, prioritize investments in standard operating procedures and digital data capture to improve reproducibility and enable seamless handoffs between discovery and regulatory-grade studies. Second, diversify sourcing strategies to include regional suppliers and validated distributors, thereby reducing exposure to cross-border tariff and logistics disruptions while ensuring access to critical breeding lines and consumables. Third, adopt a portfolio approach to model selection: maintain a core set of validated catalog models for routine assays while preserving capacity to commission custom disease-specific or transgenic lines for high-value translational questions.
Additionally, forge deeper collaborative relationships with strategic CROs and academic partners to access complementary expertise in specialty phenotyping, ADME profiling, and complex behavioral assays. Strengthen contractual terms to include contingency provisions for supply continuity and price volatility, and incorporate tariff risk assessments into procurement planning. Finally, invest in staff training on welfare, regulatory compliance, and advanced husbandry to protect animal health and data quality. By combining procedural rigor, diversified sourcing, and targeted partnerships, industry leaders can reduce operational risk and improve the predictability of preclinical programs.
A transparent mixed-methods research approach combining primary interviews, literature synthesis, and cross-validated scenario analysis to ensure actionable and reliable insights
This analysis draws on a structured, reproducible methodology that integrates primary interviews, secondary literature review, and triangulation of operational practice across stakeholder types. Primary inputs include structured interviews with vivarium managers, study directors, procurement leads at academic institutions, project managers at contract research organizations, and regulatory affairs specialists. These conversations informed an understanding of operational constraints, vendor selection criteria, and emergent scientific needs. Secondary sources encompass peer-reviewed literature on model development, technical guidance on welfare and husbandry, and policy documentation related to import/export and compliance frameworks.
Synthesis relied on cross-validation between qualitative insights and documented best practices, with attention to segmentation across animal type, model type, application, end user, distribution channel, research type, and service type to ensure that conclusions reflect differentiated operational realities. Regional analysis incorporated perspective from the Americas, Europe, Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific to surface practical considerations for multi-jurisdictional programs. Analytical rigor was maintained through iterative review cycles, validation meetings with domain experts, and scenario-based assessments of supply chain and regulatory sensitivities. This mixed-methods approach ensures the findings are actionable for both scientific and commercial decision-makers.
A concise conclusion that synthesizes technological progress, operational imperatives, and strategic approaches to sustain translational rigor and program continuity
In summary, the rat and mouse model landscape is characterized by rapid technical progress, evolving operational demands, and heightened sensitivity to supply chain and regulatory variables. Scientific advances in genetic engineering and refined disease-specific constructs are expanding experimental possibilities, yet they also introduce complexity in logistics, quality control, and protocol harmonization. The cumulative effect is an environment where careful model selection, robust data practices, and diversified sourcing are not optional but essential to preserve translational integrity and program timelines.
Stakeholders that adopt a strategic posture-combining standardized catalog capabilities for efficiency with targeted custom development for high-value biology-will be better positioned to manage cost and schedule pressures while delivering rigorous, reproducible results. Moreover, regional diversification and contractual protections can mitigate exposure to tariff volatility and customs-related delays. Ultimately, the most successful organizations will be those that integrate scientific excellence with disciplined operational management, fostering partnerships that enable both innovation and reliable delivery across the preclinical continuum.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
185 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.4. Currency
- 1.5. Language
- 1.6. Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 3. Executive Summary
- 4. Market Overview
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. Rising adoption of CRISPR/Cas9 mediated gene editing in mouse oncology research
- 5.2. Growing demand for humanized mouse models to accelerate immuno-oncology drug discovery
- 5.3. Expansion of germ-free and gnotobiotic rat models for microbiome and metabolic studies
- 5.4. Increasing integration of high-throughput phenotyping and imaging platforms for rodent screening
- 5.5. Shifts in regulatory guidelines driving demand for alternative in vitro and in silico rodent models
- 5.6. Rising collaborations between pharmaceutical companies and contract research organizations for customized rodent models
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Rat & Mouse Model Market, by Species
- 8.1. Rat Models
- 8.1.1. Outbred Rat Models
- 8.1.2. Inbred Rat Models
- 8.1.3. Genetically Engineered Rat Models
- 8.1.4. Immunodeficient Rat Models
- 8.2. Mouse Models
- 8.2.1. Outbred Mouse Models
- 8.2.2. Inbred Mouse Models
- 8.2.3. Genetically Engineered Mouse Models
- 8.2.3.1. Knockout Mouse Models
- 8.2.3.2. Transgenic Mouse Models
- 8.2.3.3. Humanized Mouse Models
- 8.2.4. Immunodeficient Mouse Models
- 8.2.4.1. Nude Mouse Models
- 8.2.4.2. SCID Mouse Models
- 8.2.4.3. NOG/NSG Mouse Models
- 9. Rat & Mouse Model Market, by Model Type
- 9.1. Inbred Models
- 9.2. Outbred Models
- 9.3. Genetically Engineered Models
- 9.3.1. Knockout Models
- 9.3.1.1. Constitutive Knockout Models
- 9.3.1.2. Conditional Knockout Models
- 9.3.1.3. Inducible Knockout Models
- 9.3.2. Transgenic Models
- 9.3.3. Humanized Models
- 9.3.4. Knock-in Models
- 9.4. Xenograft Models
- 9.4.1. Cell Line-Derived Xenograft Models
- 9.4.2. Patient-Derived Xenograft Models
- 9.5. Syngeneic Models
- 9.6. Chemically Induced Models
- 9.7. Diet-Induced Models
- 9.8. Surgically Induced Models
- 9.9. Spontaneous Disease Models
- 9.10. Reporter Models
- 10. Rat & Mouse Model Market, by Service Type
- 10.1. Standard Model Supply
- 10.1.1. Live Animals
- 10.1.2. Cryopreserved Embryos & Sperm
- 10.2. Custom Model Generation
- 10.2.1. Gene Editing Design & Construction
- 10.2.2. Embryology & Microinjection Services
- 10.2.3. Validation & Quality Control
- 10.3. Breeding & Colony Management
- 10.3.1. Breeding Strategy Design
- 10.3.2. Colony Expansion & Maintenance
- 10.3.3. Health Monitoring
- 10.4. Cryopreservation & Recovery
- 10.4.1. Sperm Cryopreservation
- 10.4.2. Embryo Cryopreservation
- 10.4.3. Resuscitation Services
- 10.5. Rederivation & Health Status Improvement
- 10.6. Phenotyping & Behavior Testing
- 10.6.1. Physiological Phenotyping
- 10.6.2. Behavioral & Cognitive Testing
- 10.7. In Vivo Study Services
- 10.7.1. Efficacy Studies
- 10.7.2. Disease Induction & Monitoring
- 10.7.3. Surgical Modeling
- 10.8. Consulting & Regulatory Support
- 11. Rat & Mouse Model Market, by Application
- 11.1. Drug Discovery & Screening
- 11.1.1. Target Identification & Validation
- 11.1.2. High-Throughput Screening
- 11.1.3. Lead Optimization
- 11.2. Preclinical Efficacy Studies
- 11.2.1. Dose-Response Studies
- 11.2.2. Combination Therapy Studies
- 11.3. Pharmacokinetics & Pharmacodynamics
- 11.3.1. Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism & Excretion
- 11.3.2. Exposure-Response Modeling
- 11.4. Safety & Toxicology Testing
- 11.4.1. Acute Toxicity
- 11.4.2. Chronic Toxicity
- 11.4.3. Carcinogenicity
- 11.4.4. Reproductive & Developmental Toxicity
- 11.5. Disease Mechanism & Pathophysiology Research
- 11.6. Biomarker Discovery & Validation
- 11.7. Translational & Biomimetic Studies
- 11.8. Education & Training
- 12. Rat & Mouse Model Market, by End User
- 12.1. Pharmaceutical Companies
- 12.1.1. Top-Tier & Multinational Pharma
- 12.1.2. Mid-Size & Specialty Pharma
- 12.2. Biotechnology Companies
- 12.2.1. Established Biotech Firms
- 12.2.2. Emerging & Virtual Biotech
- 12.3. Contract Research Organizations
- 12.3.1. Global CROs
- 12.3.2. Niche Preclinical CROs
- 12.4. Academic & Research Institutes
- 12.4.1. Universities
- 12.4.2. Independent Research Institutes
- 12.5. Government & Public Sector Laboratories
- 12.6. Nonprofit & Foundations
- 12.7. Industry Consortia & Partnerships
- 13. Rat & Mouse Model Market, by Region
- 13.1. Americas
- 13.1.1. North America
- 13.1.2. Latin America
- 13.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 13.2.1. Europe
- 13.2.2. Middle East
- 13.2.3. Africa
- 13.3. Asia-Pacific
- 14. Rat & Mouse Model Market, by Group
- 14.1. ASEAN
- 14.2. GCC
- 14.3. European Union
- 14.4. BRICS
- 14.5. G7
- 14.6. NATO
- 15. Rat & Mouse Model Market, by Country
- 15.1. United States
- 15.2. Canada
- 15.3. Mexico
- 15.4. Brazil
- 15.5. United Kingdom
- 15.6. Germany
- 15.7. France
- 15.8. Russia
- 15.9. Italy
- 15.10. Spain
- 15.11. China
- 15.12. India
- 15.13. Japan
- 15.14. Australia
- 15.15. South Korea
- 16. Competitive Landscape
- 16.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 16.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 16.3. Competitive Analysis
- 16.3.1. Biocytogen Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd.
- 16.3.2. Champions Oncology, Inc.
- 16.3.3. Charles River Laboratories International, Inc.
- 16.3.4. Crown Bioscience International, Inc.
- 16.3.5. Cyagen Biosciences, Inc.
- 16.3.6. Envigo RMS, LLC
- 16.3.7. GemPharmatech Co., Ltd.
- 16.3.8. genOway S.A.
- 16.3.9. Harbour BioMed
- 16.3.10. Hera BioLabs, Inc.
- 16.3.11. inGenious Targeting Laboratory, Inc.
- 16.3.12. Janvier Labs SA
- 16.3.13. Oncodesign Precision Medicine
- 16.3.14. Oriental BioService Co., Ltd.
- 16.3.15. Ozgene Pty Ltd.
- 16.3.16. PerkinElmer, Inc.
- 16.3.17. Pharmatest Services Oy
- 16.3.18. PolyGene AG
- 16.3.19. Taconic Biosciences, Inc.
- 16.3.20. The Jackson Laboratory
- 16.3.21. TransCure bioServices
- 16.3.22. TransTech Pharma, Inc.
- 16.3.23. TransViragen, Inc.
- 16.3.24. Vivo Bio Tech Ltd.
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
